Unenforceability & Template Letters II

martinjohn

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/getting-out-debt/227384-halifax-cca-reply-reconstituted.html

NID can you take a look at this halifax case (scroll down to PDF letters) , (think my case might be similar im not sure if i even received this after the application form) would you say its enforceable where the agreement (page 2) is "seperate" from the prescribed terms (page 3). Not sure whether the prescribed terms (page 3) were printed on the back or even included... I dont recall seeing them and the front makes no reference to them. It makes reference to agreeing to general conditions of use only.

never-in-doubt

martinjohn wrote: »

I Have now recieved the letter below. Could anyone take a look at it and see if its enforceable plz. There is no date on my signiture. No signiture from the bank that I can see and letter 3 is on the reverse of letter 2 ?? Are there any letters that might be good enough for a reply in answer to this or is my road comming to an end??

Letter 001.pdf

Letter 002.pdf

Letter 003.pdf

I assume you are bearclaire on CAG?

That is not enforceable mate - not a hope in hell of them winning this in any court :rotfl::rotfl:

Return this to them: 3. CCA Query

terimon

Thanks once again for your help NID. :T

scarednshakin

Hi NID, slowly going through CCA's. Sent request to Next and not sure what to do now. They sent out a letter and a copy of a CCA with nothing on it, no name, address, sig.

The letter says 'Please find enclosed a true copy of the credit agreement. We are satisfied that this meets with our obligations under Section 78 of the CCA.

By way of explanation, under Section 78 of the CCA, Next must supply any customer with a True Copy of their credit agreement upon request. For the purposes of Section 78 a, a True Copy need not be an exact copy or photocopy, as long as it contains every material provision of the agreement signed. This means that it does not need to have a non-statutory information which was included for the creditor's own benefit or signature boxes. Therefore Next are not required to provide you with a signed copy of the agreement and this is made clear in Section 3(2) of the Consure Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations. We are required to provide you with a true copy and a true copy is enclosed.

In light of this, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that you did not order and/or receive the goods delivered, Next will continue to seek payment of the balance of ** owed by you. It is noted that you have neither denied ordering or receiving Next goods.

A default entry will therefore be made on the credit reference file, which may affect the ability to obtain credit in the future. Making payment to clear the balance will enable the credit files to show as satisfied'

Any help/advice on this appreciated, not sure how to respond to them. Thanks again SNS

bankkiller

hi
can anyone tell me whether this cca is unenforceable?
its a friends. they got it from a DCA after requesting it. It seems to have everything, but I can't see the reference where it says "terms overleaf".
There are no prescribed terms on the page with the signature.

Thanks

Scouse19

H NID

I haven't been on for a while as it'd all gone quiet with the Halifax. Not sure if you recall but my last action was sending a letter questioning why they wouldn't send a photocopy if they had the agreement. Why would they send a reconstituted version instead when copying the original would be far easier (you used my letter as a template)...WELL, Halifax have sent me a letter today with another copy of the reconstituted version, photocopy of terms and conditions 2004 and they have also sent a cover letter which appears to admit that they don't have the original. Why do i think this? Because they include the line

"You entered into an agreement with us that was validly executed and the misplacing of the original document does not affect the validity of the agreement or the debt you owes (sic). The agreement remains enforceable and you should maintain your repayments"

What do you reckon on this? Fairfax Solicitors were chasing on Halifax's behalf and threatening CCJ but I haven't heard a peep from them for 2 months now. What's my next move? :-)

martinjohn

well according to the manchester case they need to let you know if the debt is enforceable or not... could this be their way of doing that? you tell me! if its misplaced IT DOES affect the enforceability of the debt, so who are they kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scouse19

martinjohn wrote: »

well according to the manchester case they need to let you know if the debt is enforceable or not... could this be their way of doing that? you tell me! if its misplaced IT DOES affect the enforceability of the debt, so who are they kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it's strange that they even admitted misplacing it anyway...what's that about! :eek:

martinjohn

I would argue that the sainsburys agreement is questionable, my argument would be that the signature comes BEFORE these apparent prescribed terms,
MY basic understanding of contract law is that a signature always goes at the END of a contract. To say that well you can have further pages seems insaine to me.
The heading for CCA 1974 comes twice within the agreement as well. So the document is arguably not one document. why have the CCA 1974 heading twice (i.e. again the middle of the second page? - was this just where its been photocopied?)
Apparently though the law did tighten this up back in 2004 to say that the prescibed terms need to come BEFORE the signature? and the agreement was in 2005? It also should have a heading "KEY FINANCIAL INFORMATION" before the prescribed terms?
Further this is an "application form", can this truely be an agreement?
Finally, there is SO much confusion with regards to all this CCAing, i dont think weve heard the last of it....

martinjohn

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I assume you are bearclaire on CAG?

That is not enforceable mate - not a hope in hell of them winning this in any court :rotfl::rotfl:

Return this to them: 3. CCA Query

Nope im not claire

Why exactly do you say its not enforceable? The prescribed terms are there, just not where they should be? its this old embodied within 4 corners thing, this is the MAJOR problem im seing, they seem to put the prescribed terms whereever they please i.e. hidden in a drawyer somewhere!

thanks!